#1029: USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT? (fwd)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

If nobody wants to say anything about this, I'm going to close it with a 
"no change needed". I can't accept a change based on a single voice and no 
raised objection.

                     Harald

---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Date: onsdag, juni 08, 2005 13:32:05 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ietf-usefor@xxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: #1029: USEFOR 3.2.2 References: Should comments be a MUST NOT?


New ticket:

At the moment, section 3.2.2 of usefor-04 says:

o Comments in CFWS between message identifiers can cause
interoperability problems, so comments SHOULD NOT be generated,
but MUST be accepted.


--On 3. juni 2005 01:45 -0400 "Forrest J. Cavalier III"
<mibsoft@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> BTW, CFWS in References is a silly unnecessary complication. (CFWS
in
> any structured header
> is a bad idea,IMNSHO. - I implement article processing software.)
>
> usepro Transitional Arrangements even admits comments in References
will
> break existing software.
>
> So, why are comments going to be allowed in the References header?
>
> Is the idea to make References irrelevant and unreliable, and then
we
> don't
> care that it cannot be parsed by legacy software?

While we cannot change RFC 2822, it may be logical to change SHOULD
NOT to MUST NOT.




---------- End Forwarded Message ----------